educational provisions, is to place merchant seamen of World War II within the terms of the United States Employees Compensation Act. Members of the merchant marine on vessels owned or operated by the Government during the First World War were covered under the United States Employees Compensation Act. As a matter of law they were also covered during the Second World War up until the passage of Public Law 17 in 1943.

The reason that that bill was passed, or one of the reasons it was passed, was that at that time, or at the time the bill was introduced, the Government had not pre-empted the whole field of the American merchant marine, some of the vessels being operated under time charter or for private account. Therefore, merchant seamen, in view of his type of employment, on one voyage would be on a public vessel where he would be a Federal employee, the next voyage he may be on a private vessel whereby he would not be under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, and that provision of Public Law 17 removed them from the status of Federal employees for the purpose, among others, of the Compensation Act.

This bill restores the rights which they would have had except for Public Law 17 and also-that is those employees who worked on Government-owned or Government-operated vessels and also brings within Federal Employees Compensation Act provisions those seamen who were sailing on privately owned and operated vessels but, nevertheless, in the service of the Government and under the Government's control. Since they were all employed in the common effort there appears to be no justification for distinction between them.

Mr. WEICHEL. Wasn't there some reason for that removal, because of the special request with reference to wages and all that sort of thing? They asked to be removed in the first instance. There was something else back of it. The idea was not to give these wages and special bonuses and then give all these other benefits. There was something else back of it. I would like to have that explained at some future time.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I would be glad to see that is included in the report, Mr. Weichel.

Mr. WEICHEL. Is there not something to that, something with reference to it? They asked to be removed and made that request saying, "We do not want to be in the armed forces and under the control of the Army and Navy. We want high wages and want to be removed from this and that," and now they come back and want it. Is there not something to that?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I would not follow it as you stated it, Mr. Weichel. I would state it in this manner: I am informed here was some discussion of incorprating the merchant marine into the armed forces, somewhat in the same nature the Coast Guard is embraced within the armed forces in time of war by being transferred from the Treasury Department to the Navy. I am informed that among other reasons they preferred not to be included within the armed forces, but to retain their civilian status

Mr. WEICHEL. One of the reasons was with reference to the payment in the armed forces of $50 a month for the lowest rank on this side and $60 overseas. That was one of the reasons, was it not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. There may have been some contemplation of it, but I think the monetary wage that is received by a person must be

distinguished from the real wage they may receive in kind as opposed to cash. The cash income of the merchant seamen was, in most part, larger in number of dollars received per month of employment.

Mr. WEICHEL. The Maritime Commission put in a statement here the last time that the average pay of the lowest ranking person was $2,500 a year.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. That may well be. But the real benefits received by members of the armed forces in many cases exceeded that.

Mr. WEICHEL. I mean the lowest rank. A private of the Army got more than $2,500 a year in benefits.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think at times you may find his real income exceed the value of $2,500 a year.

Mr. WEICHEL, I would like to have that put in the record where you find that the private in the Army or the seaman in the Navy had an income of more than $2,500 a year.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. It must be distinguished.

Mr. WEICHEL. I am talking about the individual and not one with dependants. I am talking with reference to the individual. You are talking about added dependency. I mean leaving off dependency. That is not income to him. Leaving off dependency it is not true, is it?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. No. But a man who receives $100 a month for his dependents is receiving as much real income as though he had received $100 in cash and then gave it to his dependents.

Mr. WEICHEL. Yes. Are you going to make a comparison of the private in the Army with nine children as against the merchant seaman with no dependents and the private in the Army with no dependents and the one in the merchant marine with with no dependents? I want you to compare like with like.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think where you have as large numbers as are involved in both the merchant marine and the armed forces you are doing an injustice to one or the other by singling out a specific example without getting an over-all picture of what may have been a relatively average situation.

Mr. WEICHEL. Then with reference to this payment of money which you do not consider anything, in other words, lowest rank in merchant marine and the lowest rank in the Army and the lowest rank in the Navy, there would be no objection if you just pay in accord with similar status. If you give them the same and not more, that would be all right, would it not? You want to give these merchant seamen with equal rank the same benefits in money. That would be all right, would it not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. If they are accorded equal treatment, I think that would be a matter that this bill would in part accomplish.

Mr. WEICHEL. Yes. But this bill as it now stands recommends unequal treatment. It gives the people who are outside of the armed forces more money in benefits than those who were in the armed forces, person per person with equal rank.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think you will find the record does not support you, Mr. Weichel.

Mr. WEICHEL. Outside of what the Maritime Commission put in the record here before that is what we have to go on.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I also wish to make clear that my concept of dollars is not to be considered, in my opinion, as meaning nothing.

I

Dollars are extremely important and they have a definite value. also think benefits received in kind have an equivalent value in dollars. By paying the seaman so many dollars on the one hand and paying a soldier so many dollars and so many other benefits having an equivalence in dollars, you may find they equal each other, or one outweighs the other a little more or less.

Mr. WEICHEL. Depending how you use the equivalents. Take a man in the merchant marine without dependents. On the testimony offered here he would average $2,500 a year. Take a private in the Army or a seaman in the Navy without dependents, in domestic service, with $600 a year. Would you call the equivalents-this difference in the Army and Navy-what he received? Would you say it is worth $1,900? In other words, the merchant seaman had his food and quarters, did he not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. The man in the Army had his food and quarters, did he not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. The man in the Army had his clothing, did he not? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. In the merchant marine he had to purchase his own clothing?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. That is right.

Mr. WEICHEL. So the only difference between the two of them with reference to the equivalents is that a man who was a civilian had to purchase his own clothes. That is the relative difference, the real difference between each of those who has no dependents. Is that right?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. That is the only difference insofar as you have stated the facts.

Mr. WEICHEL. In the Navy they purchase their clothes, do they not? Mr. MCCANDLESS. There are other items besides clothing which distinguish between benefits.

Mr. WEICHEL. What are the others on the set-up I just put up to you?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Disability benefits, the GI bill of rights with its various and sundry benefits for members of the armed forces. Another in the hospitalization which is available. I heard only yesterday that the Veterans' Administration is spending seven-eighths of its hospitalization on non-service-connected-disability illnesses and otherwise.

Mr. WEICHEL. That is why those people are receiving that. That is on people who got $50 a month and not $250.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. One of the items paid to a member of the armed forces in kind.

Mr. WEICHEL. You are talking now about since their discharge from the service, about receiving hospitalization.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Either in or out of the discharge.

Mr. WEICHEL. When a merchant seaman was in service, or he so considered himself a merchant seaman, is there any provision with reference to the United States Public Health? Do they get treatment at the hospitals, United States Public Health, marine hospitals?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes. They get service only so long as reasonable care and attention can bring about a possible cure. When that point is reached

Mr. WEICHEL. How long does anybody get that benefit?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. When that point is reached that the person's rehabilitation by hospitalization in which further care and attention will not improve his condition, then his right to hospitalizaton under the Public Health Service according to the law and the rule and regulation is subject to termination.

Mr. WEICHEL. Is that with reference to any injury received in the service?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, whereas in the case of the members of the armed forces whether the injury is the result of direct action or otherwise they are

Mr. WEICHEL. It is not otherwise. It is only if he has no money. Is that right?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I am speaking of while he is in the service, which I thought was the limit of your present question.

Mr. WEICHEL. Yes.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Then he is entitled to such service as long as it will be beneficial to him and it is not measured upon the standard of whether further attention will effect a further recovery.

Mr. WEICHEL. Then that part of the hospitalization he gets is something which, from what you say, is in the discretion of the United States Public Health Service?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think within the provisions

Mr. WEICHEL. The law does not cut him off, does it? I do not think it does.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think insofar as the law as given to the Public Health Service is concerned giving them a right to exercise discretion it does.

Mr. BONNER. Is there not some domiciliary care, a home you have for disabled seamen, other than hospitals?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. We had during the war an arrangement with the United Seamen's Service, I believe it was, where we had provisions made for rest and rehabilitation of seamen who would come in from a voyage, probably shipwrecked, and they would have an opportunity to sort of get themselves together for a relatively short time. Mr:BONNER. That is not continued now?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. No.

Mr. BONNER. One other thing I am interested in is the discussion which took place at the time you referred to the earlier stages of the war with respect to merchant seamen on a Government-owned ship and on a privately owned ship, and their not wanting to be inducted under the National Defense Act. You say that discussion took place? Mr. MCCANDLESS. I am so informed.

Mr. BONNER. You were with the Maritime Commission at that time? Mr. MCCANDLESS. No; I was not, Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Is there somebody yet with the Maritime Commission who at present remember when those discussions took place and who was present?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I hope there is someone present who may have some direct information on it. If there is I would try to see they are made available to the committee.

Mr. BONNER. There are records in the Maritime Commission of the discussion, are there not?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I understand so. As I recall it, Mr. Godfrey Butler testified at the hearings last year on this with regard to that particular point.

Mr. BONNER. This particular thing?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. BONNER. Were they put in the record at the time?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I rather think so. If I had the index I might be able to tell you.

Mr. BONNER. I do not want to take up additional time.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Further questions?

Mr. BONNER. I would like if it is possible to get a transcript of that conference and put it in the record.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. In one of the subcommittee hearings it may have been mentioned.

Mr. BONNER. It was a conference with representatives of the merchant seamen. It was someone with authority to ask that all merchant seamen be deferred.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Might I suggest to the Congressman I do not think he means the merchant seaman meant he wanted to be left out of the national defense. He wanted to be left out of incorporation into the armed forces, whereas they played a definite part in the national defense as civilians.

Mr. BONNER. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. The statement you made with reference to merchant seamen, even though they are off 5 or 6 months, they are still merchant seamen and entitled by law to the United States Public Health Service treatment, physician, hospital service. From your testimony it would seem that at a certain point in the United States Health Service they say they have had reasonable treatment and they throw them out in the street. Do they not have an out-patient treatment and continue to give these men treatment? If they do not we should have the United States Public Health Service up here because these people who are injured in the service, or these people who are entitled to hospitalization under the law, should be continued. I do not think the law cuts them off so it is being badly administered. We would like to know about it so we can put the people on their toes who are supposed to administer it and take care of these people.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I do not think the Public Health Service are neglecting the obligation imposed upon them. I think they have hospitalization and they do have out-patient care. The point I wish to make—and if I did not make it clear may I do so now-is that if hospitalization or medical care has got the individual as far as such reasonable care can, he is not longer, as I understand it, entitled to hospitalization.

At the time medical care, either hospitalization or out-patient, no longer has a reasonable likelihood of improving his condition, it is my understanding he is then no longer entitled to Public Health Service care.